British Nuclear Knockback

rsynnott

This may be of some interest: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/6364281.stm

While I find this quite disappointing, I'm not all that surprised; there _was_ a very swift u-turn on nuclear energy by the UK government.

SeanW

Nothing more than a temporary setback ... I hope!

lostexpectation

rsynnott wrote:

This may be of some interest: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/6364281.stm

While I find this quite disappointing, I'm not all that surprised; there _was_ a very swift u-turn on nuclear energy by the UK government.

had the labour party MPs ever voted on the nuclear issue before that, infact have they yet?

the gov mislead the public on the consultation, thats more then a setback and is exactly the type of lobbied and greased government insult that tarnishes the nuclear industry.

rsynnott

Oh, absolutely, the whole thing was very poorly handled. Unfortunately, it may end up further delaying things.

Capt'n Midnight

SeanW wrote:

Nothing more than a temporary setback ... I hope!

But the political fallout could last years.

SeanW

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

But the political fallout could last years.

Bad pun But if this does cause serious delay, or worse, a cancellation to the much needed renewal of the British nuclear fleet, then there's going to be a lot more coal burned. And a lot more CO2 emissions that this entails.

Greenpeace can be justifiably proud ... idiots. I had a look at their frontpage today for the laugh. This time their focus on defending the oceans and saving the whales. (Rather than Chernobyl propoganda which seems to have taken a back page).

I wish them well in that campaign to be sure, but if they take the same utopian, impractical and frankly contradictory and counterproductive approach to ocean defense as they take to global warming, then I fear the whales are already history.

Capt'n Midnight

Whale oil is renewable and carbon neutral ?

rsynnott

Greenpeace's opposition to nuclear is, IMO, bizarre, especially in situations like this, where the only clear alternative is coal (gas would cause an undesirable dependence on Russia).

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

Whale oil is renewable and carbon neutral ?

Renewable, yes. Carbon neutral, no.

SeanW

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

Whale oil is renewable and carbon neutral ?

No. I obviously didn't explain my thoughts correctly. My mistake. Today's court case judgement and the ocean defense business are not connected except by the originators of the action. I do not support whaling at all, and I hope Greenpeace is successful in their ocean defense campaign.

What I meant was that if they approach the issue of ocean defense with the same level of extremism, blinkered thinking, lack of vision and borderline mendacity that they apply to global warming and nuclear power's role, then I fear they have little hope of achieving their objectives - that of arresting global warming or any other.

To put my thoughts to an analogy, it would be like if a political group wanted to have a war against crime, but opposed the recruitment of Gardai and activley protested and blocked the opening of new police stations and prisons, calling instead for a Neghborhood Watch programme, you would quickly start to wonder what they were doing - or if they were serious about and capable of achieving their objectives.

Then that same policital group tells you they want that they want to fix the health system, or whatever ... but given their lack of a credible position on their headline issue you have to wonder if they can actually do that either.

Greenpeace gives me the impression they they're trying to clean up the environment and arrest global warming ... by vilifying one of the best tools we have to clean up the environment and arrest global warming. It just doesn't add up. That's why I wonder if they'll do any better at the other stuff, which I don't think they will if they're taking the same kind of approaches.

piraka

SeanW wrote:

Greenpeace can be justifiably proud ... idiots. I had a look at their frontpage today for the laugh. This time their focus on defending the oceans and saving the whales. (Rather than Chernobyl propoganda which seems to have taken a back page).

The quote below is from a thought provoking eassy by climatologist Kerry Emanuel

Had it not been for green opposition, the United States today might derive most of its electricity from nuclear power, as does France; thus the environmentalists must accept a large measure of responsibility for today’s most critical environmental problem.

RedPlanet

Had it not been for green opposition, the United States today might derive most of its electricity from nuclear power, as does France; thus the environmentalists must accept a large measure of responsibility for today’s most critical environmental problem.

It's rubbish. Environmentalists advocate renewable energy, not fossil fuels.
It's the same sort of ignorant statement you hear in USA towards those (lefties) that don't vote for the Dems: "if you don't vote Democrat than your voting for Bush".
Nonsense.

luapenak

I am fairly sure i heard the green peace guy talking on the news yesterday, responding to this outcome, mention that nuclear energy was financially a bad idea (dont know exact quote).
I was very confused especially when i heard it later again when i saw the news on another channel and was sure he said that. I was under impression that nuclear energy was extremely economic. Either he was talking through his arse or he wasn't very clear about what he meant. I read a relatively trustworthy article not so long ago which said that a large nuclear power plant equivalent can save (make) about 1billion euro more than an equivalent power plant powered by oil over its lifetime.

lostexpectation

luapenak wrote:

I am fairly sure i heard the green peace guy talking on the news yesterday, responding to this outcome, mention that nuclear energy was financially a bad idea (dont know exact quote).
I was very confused especially when i heard it later again when i saw the news on another channel and was sure he said that. I was under impression that nuclear energy was extremely economic. Either he was talking through his arse or he wasn't very clear about what he meant. I read a relatively trustworthy article not so long ago which said that a large nuclear power plant equivalent can save (make) about 1billion euro more than an equivalent power plant powered by oil over its lifetime.

that was exactly what the court case was about, did you not hear the judge, not all financial implicatiosn were included in the gov paper, thats why they lost and green peace won, would you prefer if greenpeace agreed to flawed document and process, that wouldnt impress you would it,

and seanw , the nuclear fleet, nice fraudian(sp?) slip

luapenak

lostexpectation wrote:

that was exactly what the court case was about, did you not hear the judge

No sorry about that. I just caugth the bit with greenpeace guy talking and then read the link from the first post which although mentions costs, as one of the objections by greenpeace, it does not conclude in that article that it was a significant part in the verdict.
Maybe i should have read into it more, although the details i mentioned didnt come from the governments report.
it is a pity the government didn't manage to sort this out properly. Since this happened in courts it will probably affect many peoples opinions of nuclear energy

rsynnott

luapenak wrote:

I was very confused especially when i heard it later again when i saw the news on another channel and was sure he said that. I was under impression that nuclear energy was extremely economic.

Ah, well, therein lies the problem, you see. The economics of nuclear power are rather complicated due to the need to hoard money for decommissioning. It's accepted by most that modern nuclear plants are cheaper than anything except coal, especially if you apply CO2 charges. Coal is clearly unacceptable for other reasons. However, Britain has exactly one modernish nuclear plant currently (Sizewell B; it's a previous-generation Westinghouse Pressure Water Reactor). Most of Britain's nuclear plants are old MAGNOX things, with a few Advanced Gas Reactors. They're expensive to run, and unexpectedly expensive to decommission (due partly to problems at Sellafield leading to spent MOX fuel being stored on-site). The early MAGNOX reactors were largely used for weapons material production in their early lives, build costs over-ran, and many plants were more or less built as economic aid to depressed regions, rather than to supply major cities. So Britain's economic experience of nuclear energy is horrible. They are being asked to accept, with possibly insufficient evidence, that a line of EPRs or AP1000s will do better.

luapenak wrote:

Either he was talking through his arse or he wasn't very clear about what he meant. I read a relatively trustworthy article not so long ago which said that a large nuclear power plant equivalent can save (make) about 1billion euro more than an equivalent power plant powered by oil over its lifetime.

No-one uses oil, though, more or less. Gas is the main realistic alternative; it might or might not be a bit cheaper, but would ultimately leave Britain at the mercy of foreign exporters, and would make it difficult or impossible to meet CO2 targets.

Lennoxschips

If people are going to keep trotting out the old "nuclear vs coal" straw man debate, then I think mentioning Chernobyl is fair enough.

To me the whole "nuclear vs coal" thing is like saying being against the war in Iraq means that you are with the terrorists.

rsynnott

Lennoxschips wrote:

If people are going to keep trotting out the old "nuclear vs coal" straw man debate, then I think mentioning Chernobyl is fair enough.

To me the whole "nuclear vs coal" thing is like saying being against the war in Iraq means that you are with the terrorists.

Actually, I trotted out the nuclear vs. gas debate, which is rather more realistic. My only mention of coal was to say that it's unacceptable.

SeanW

Lennoxschips wrote:

the old "nuclear vs coal" straw man debate

No straw man ... just reality. You either support one, or the other because there are no circumstances under which any world figure or energy analyst considers both unnecessary. Fossil fuels have been and continue to be the dominant player in the energy game, hence my call for a strategy of all non-fossil options & a good level of conservation.

A conservation alone strategy which you seem to advocate, would require a total global economic collapse if both nuclear and fossil fuels were to be fully discontinued. At very least we can hope to remove ONE of these from the mix - and even that would be very optimistic.

"Coal Vs Nuclear" is a reality for a significant portion of our energy needs. If you can't deal with that, fair enough. The rest of us have to deal in facts.

then I think mentioning Chernobyl is fair enough.

Which just proves how little you actually know about Chernobyl.

To me the whole "nuclear vs coal" thing is like saying being against the war in Iraq means that you are with the terrorists.

Wow, now we bring Iraq into the debate. And you accuse ME of beating a straw man?

Lennoxschips

"Coal Vs Nuclear" is a reality for a significant portion of our energy needs. If you can't deal with that, fair enough. The rest of us have to deal in facts.

Heh. Well the facts are that nobody in Ireland wants nuclear. You've seen the uproar about Shell to sea. Now where do you think in Ireland people are going to want a reactor built near them? Who wants the waste stored in their county? The waste which no nuclear country has gotten around to disposing of despite 50 years of trying?

rsynnott

Lennoxschips wrote:

Heh. Well the facts are that nobody in Ireland wants nuclear. You've seen the uproar about Shell to sea. Now where do you think in Ireland people are going to want a reactor built near them? Who wants the waste stored in their county? The waste which no nuclear country has gotten around to disposing of despite 50 years of trying?

Finland will start permanent disposal shortly. However, while the waste of a nuclear power plant is stored in a contained area, the waste of a coal plant is stored in the lungs of the local people and in the atmosphere.

Who wants a coal power plant built near them, when it comes to it? A gas one might be more acceptable, but if foreign suppliers of gas ever become uncooperative, as they did with the Ukraine, people aren't going to like the blackouts.

Lennoxschips

I don't think I mentioned coal just there.

rsynnott

Lennoxschips wrote:

I don't think I mentioned coal just there.

It is, however, one of three practical alternatives. I assume you don't want to just switch the power off, so I'm guessing you want to use something in lieu of nuclear.

SeanW

You didn't say what we should (realistically) do instead either ... With fossil fuels, the waste gets spewn into the air.

That's really well "managed" isn't it?

As for the problems of political acceptance, yes those are issues that 'my' side has to deal with ... That's kind why I was hoping the British would get it together so we could import even more nuclear power than we do now (0.17% according to the Commission for energy regulation).

But you also have to account for the fact that Ireland is 97% dependent on fossil fuels. Please stop trying to dodge the issue. But of course there was an attempt to do something about Ireland's runaway reliance on oil etc in the 1970s. But that never happened and in the interim, we've burned lots of gas and peat. And it looks like we're going to continue.

piraka

Lennoxschips wrote:

Heh. Well the facts are that nobody in Ireland wants nuclear.

What facts are you talking about?

Lennoxschips

Our democratically elected public representatives, from almost all parties, have been consistently against Nuclear power. That's the reality of Ireland today.

rsynnott

But will that continue, as electricity requirements grow? The opinions of our democratically elected public representatives are notoriously changeable. Which is a good thing, by the way, because _situations_ change. Nuclear starts to look a lot more attractive (and economical) when the alternatives are liable to be hit by hefty CO2 charges, and run on increasingly insecure fuel supplies, while nuclear continues to become more economical and the first permanent waste depositories open. The UK government has had a bit of a turnaround, you will note; in 2003 there were no plans to build any more nuclear plants, ever. Something similar appears to be happening in Germany.

Lennoxschips

There hasn't been a new Nuclear plant in the UK in decades and the German parliament decided to phase out Nuclear power five years ago. The only thing the UK has said is that they are not ruling it out indefinitely.

I think when government think tanks actually sit down and analyse the costs of setting up nuclear power, the uranium supply situation, the actual uranium fuel cycle carbon output, the security question, the contamination risks, spiraling cleanup costs, waste storage coasts etc., that they'll wonder what the hell they are getting into. However, some politicians, who think mostly in terms of short term, might see it as a quick fix to meet short term CO2 targets, even if it does present big problems in the long term.

Of course however, the Nuclear industry aren't turkeys voting for Christmas, they have a very large and powerful lobby. Their propaganda campaign these last few years to rebrand themselves as green has been quite impressive.

Capt'n Midnight

In the US the worked out it would be cheaper to insulate factories then build power plants to heat them. But insulation has a capital cost so private industry ain't going to do it.

In England and Wales if you have a gas boiler , it has to be a condensing boiler. Ireland is in the middle of a housing boom, if we had mandated that all new gas boilers had to be condensing, or we could have set standards of solar energy like Spain does now.

Take into account the material cost of building a house compared to the tax take the government take on it, and the land, and the tax on wages earned by the builders, and by the mortgague payer and how much we'd pay for Koyoto. We could easily afford to superinsulate all new houses in the form of a tax break. Would not cost the government anything as they would save on carbon tax , and provision of new power plants.

rsynnott

Lennoxschips wrote:

There hasn't been a new Nuclear plant in the UK in decades and the German parliament decided to phase out Nuclear power five years ago. The only thing the UK has said is that they are not ruling it out indefinitely.

Indeed, Sizewell B in 1995. And didn't they recently start looking for tenders on building a new one? The German parliament decided to phase it out, sure, but the question seems to be about to be re-opened.

Lennoxschips wrote:

I think when government think tanks actually sit down and analyse the costs of setting up nuclear power,

High capital investment, certainly.

Lennoxschips wrote:

the uranium supply situation,

Not a problem. Proven reserves for decades of current use, and at least centuries of fast breeder use. Russia and India are currently building commercial-scale fast breeder reactors.

Lennoxschips wrote:

the actual uranium fuel cycle carbon output,

Can be hefty, but doesn't compare to the carbon output of gas or coal still on a per-kilowatt-hour basis.

Lennoxschips wrote:

the security question,

This would be security to stop people going in and causing a meltdown? Hasn't been a problem so far.

Lennoxschips wrote:

the contamination risks,

The ones that current nuclear plants have in spades, of course. Everyone in France is actually dead.

Lennoxschips wrote:

spiraling cleanup costs,

Spiralling? Really? They did for MAGNOX plants in the UK, as a result of poor planning and insufficient immediate reprocessing capacity. I'm not convinced that they ALWAYS spiral, though.

Lennoxschips wrote:

waste storage coasts etc.,

Go look at the Finnish storage system.

Lennoxschips wrote:

that they'll wonder what the hell they are getting into. However, some politicians, who think mostly in terms of short term, might see it as a quick fix to meet short term CO2 targets, even if it does present big problems in the long term.

Do you know of any other way to meet those targets?

Lennoxschips wrote:

Of course however, the Nuclear industry aren't turkeys voting for Christmas, they have a very large and powerful lobby. Their propaganda campaign these last few years to rebrand themselves as green has been quite impressive.

Erm, they've always been green, relatively speaking. France's nuclear shift did not happen because Franatome had a nice advertising programme; it happened as a national policy decision. The renewables industry has spent a fair bit sexing up their products, too, and the fossil fuel industry would if not for the fact that no-one would take them seriously.

Lennoxschips

Why such a sarcastic tone?

Just a few points in reply:

- The German parliament passed a bill five years ago to phase out nuclear power. They haven't passed any bill otherwise as of yet. Anything else is hearsay.

- Uranium is a non-renewable source. As you say, at current usage levels there are indeed "decades" of supply left, but if it is seriously going to provide the bulk of the world's energy (as people here are proposing), including powering a hydrogen-based economy, then there is less than a decade of useful uranium left, until we get in to the uranium that is so difficult to extract that there is little useful energy gain (and large CO2 output). Breeder reactors have proved to be problematic, but even then you are working with a non-renewable resource.

- Finland's waste disposal facility is in the development stage as of yet. There isn't a single gram of permanently stored radioactive waste in the world, despite 50 years of trying. Unless you count waste at the bottom of seas of course. However, even if the Finnish solution proves to be decent, where in Ireland could such a site be constructed? Do we have large crystalline rock formations in vast unpopulated areas?

- As for security, I am referring to security of the plants, yes, and materials (radioactive materials have been "unaccounted for" in both the UK and Russia), as well as the waste disposal sites themselves. The waste sites will also have to be secured for over 100,000 years until the waste has been reduced to an acceptable level. What's to stop terrorists in 1,000 years from now teleporting some waste out for themselves? You have to think of the timescales involved. Throwing it in a hole is a poor solution, in my opinion.

- Contamination. Sellafield and Three Mile Island have both been shown to affect the health of animals and human populations in the area. And let's not forget the hundreds of thousands of square kilometers of land in Ukraine and Belarus that are uninhabitable. It could happen again.

- Spiraling cleanup costs: 105 billion euro to clean up Britain's first generation of nuclear plants. Up from a previous estimate of 84 billion.

- Other ways to meet targets: Better urban planning, reduced food mileage, sustainable living, better insulation, small and large scale renewable, reduced energy usage, public transportation. Of course the Nuclear industry would prefer if we kept living in the unsustainable way we currently do (especially the current the Irish lifestyle), because that creates perceived demand for their product.

rsynnott

Lennoxschips wrote:

Why such a sarcastic tone?

Just a few points in reply:

- The German parliament passed a bill five years ago to phase out nuclear power. They haven't passed any bill otherwise as of yet. Anything else is hearsay.

Indeed they did, and they haven't. Want to bet on which way that goes in the next decade? Germany currently derives 30% of its electricity from nuclear plants, mostly quite large newish nuclear plants, with the capital costs paid.

Lennoxschips wrote:

- Uranium is a non-renewable source. As you say, at current usage levels there are indeed "decades" of supply left, but if it is seriously going to provide the bulk of the world's energy (as people here are proposing), including powering a hydrogen-based economy, then there is less than a decade of useful uranium left, until we get in to the uranium that is so difficult to extract that there is little useful energy gain (and large CO2 output). Breeder reactors have proved to be problematic, but even then you are working with a non-renewable resource.

First, current extractable supply: the low estimates are in the hundred year range, the high ones are in the millenia range. That's before you look at the sea water content, with is extractable, apparently. And while costs to extract more would go up, in a hydrogen-based economy emissions wouldn't be so bad.

Breeder reactors have been vaguely problematic, granted, largely in terms of economics. They work, though; one in France and one in Russia have been merrily producing power for decades, and the Russians and Indians are now building larger ones. With fuel cost increases (and fuel costs only make up a small part of a reactor's running costs) they will become more practical, and they may be economic even now, if fed thorium. (India has huge thorium reserves, hence their interest).

Lennoxschips wrote:

- Finland's waste disposal facility is in the development stage as of yet. There isn't a single gram of permanently stored radioactive waste in the world, despite 50 years of trying. Unless you count waste at the bottom of seas of course. However, even if the Finnish solution proves to be decent, where in Ireland could such a site be constructed? Do we have large crystalline rock formations in vast unpopulated areas?

Indeed, the Finnish solution should be on-line by 2020, all going well. The problems with the US site are largely political. And Ireland will presumably have the option of exporting waste.

Lennoxschips wrote:

- As for security, I am referring to security of the plants, yes, and materials (radioactive materials have been "unaccounted for" in both the UK and Russia), as well as the waste disposal sites themselves. The waste sites will also have to be secured for over 100,000 years until the waste has been reduced to an acceptable level. What's to stop terrorists in 1,000 years from now teleporting some waste out for themselves? You have to think of the timescales involved. Throwing it in a hole is a poor solution, in my opinion.

If terrorists in 1000 years have teleporters, nuclear waste would be of only academic interest. As far as I remember, the Sellafield 'losses' were due to the difficulty in perfectly estimating the yield of fuel reprocessing, and were well within international standards.

Lennoxschips wrote:

- Contamination. Sellafield and Three Mile Island have both been shown to affect the health of animals and human populations in the area. And let's not forget the hundreds of thousands of square kilometers of land in Ukraine and Belarus that are uninhabitable. It could happen again.

As far as I remember, there's no conclusive evidence of harm to humans from Three Mile Island (or from the Windscale fire, in the 50s, which released far more radioactive material). As for Sellafield, while it certainly did once emit a lot of untreated waste, there's little evidence that it does any more.

Lennoxschips wrote:

- Spiraling cleanup costs: 105 billion euro to clean up Britain's first generation of nuclear plants. Up from a previous estimate of 84 billion.

Mentioned this. Britain is a special case, due to its unique domestic nuclear energy setup.

Lennoxschips wrote:

- Other ways to meet targets: Better urban planning, reduced food mileage, sustainable living, better insulation, small and large scale renewable, reduced energy usage, public transportation. Of course the Nuclear industry would prefer if we kept living in the unsustainable way we currently do (especially the current the Irish lifestyle), because that creates perceived demand for their product.

Certainly efforts should be made to reduce usage. I doubt that they will stop rising usage, however much they may slow it, though. Of course, implementing many of them might be a problem; we are not a command economy. In any case, our current power generation infrastructure will not last for ever and it will not be possible to fuel it securely forever. Wind power, while it is certainly of some use, is unable to provide base load power, and small-scale wind solutions are thus far extremely unimpressive.